The natural language is potentially an infinityof statements that can be realized with a finite number of letterscontained in the A to Z alphabet. With a "substance"containing less than 30 letters in the alphabet we have a languagewhich from the point of view of the number of possible sentencesis practically infinite. Then why could we not have in the depthsof the existence, for a finite number of principles, an infinityof possibilities ? Knowledge will then contain what is finiteand also its infinite potentialities; thus a new image of theinexhaustible character of matter. If things were like this thenwe could reach quicker that art that seems an absolute truth butwhich, once reached, would not be only absolute due to the infinitepossibilities of change and to the infinite potentiality of changing and producing changes.
The author of these essays was not a philosopher.He has worked for many years as a specialist in electronics andhas tackled subjects in physics, solid state electronics, microelectronics, computers and information theory, being also concerned with theirapplications to economical and social life. For a period of timehe coordinated activities in other areas of science and technology, and presently (1991) he is the President of the Romanian Academy.The thing that he noticed on the scientific level was a lack ofunity in science which is philosophically covered by the concept of the unity of the material world. This thing does not seem atall sufficient, since the unity of the world is a necessary conditionfor our thinking framework: a more clear image must be provided of the links that make up the connection between the known aspectsof the material world.

It is known that physics is presently debatingthe problem of whether our universe is finite or infinite. Butcan the problem of finite or infinite affect the general idea,or be an essential problem of the materialist philosophy ? Engelswas right when he said that a simplified image of a finite universeleads to a divinity existing beyond the space-time limits of thisuniverse. Finite and infinite must be now judged in relation tothe theories of relativity and of elementary particles.
Can we disregard the discoveries done in astronomy,the contemporary cosmological theories based on the theory ofrelativity and on the corrections and additions brought to thelatter ? And the fact that astrophysics must also use the theoryof elementary particles to try to explain some essential phenomenamet in the Cosmos ? And the modifications taking place regardingspace and time in microcosms ?
In the previous century it seemed absurd tothink of a material existence outside space and time, as longas Science could offer no possibility, no opening for such ideas.But todays Physics offers a different view. And anyway, the humanmind has grounds to ask such a question independently of the discoveriesand the enigmas of Science. For this reason we still have largepossibilities to construct a philosophical image of the worldstarting from the modality in which our mind thinks up the existence.And if an organ like the brain is considered a device, then theway in which it thinks about certain fundamental aspectsof the existence and conscience can have the values of "philosophicalexperiments".
Let's consider what is the image Science givesregarding the finite or infinite universe. A paper in a physicaljournal starts with the significant question: " Is the universeof infinite extension or is it a finite system ? "1. We find this question in many other works too2,3. We see models with an open universe in expansion towards infinityand starting from an initial moment. Or with a closed, finite,universe having an expansion and then a recession until it disappears.Or with a closed but pulsating universe having cycles of expansionsand total recessions. All these models coexist in the scientificenvironment and a debate exists in connection with the experimentalevidence that Science accumulates. Science could not yet adopta definitive model and according to V. L. Ginsburg "the materialisticphilosophy does not and cannot put a taboo on the choice of the model for the universe"4.The same view was shared by the Romanian astronomer Calin Popovicifor whom the infinite or finite universe could no longer testifyeither for or against the materiality of the world5.
Physical models of the universe were developedin Romania by Acad. Octav Onicescu6,N. Ionescu-Pallas7,and L. Sofonea8 :according to the type of physical theory used, one would encounterthe model of an universe with a finite number of galaxies, ina finite space but infinite in time (the invariant mechanics),or an infinite universe in space and time. Confronted with sucha variety of models, the question arises as to what extend canwe distinguish the physical infinity from the various types ofmathematical infinity; and in connection with this, how are wegoing to understand the infinity from that philosophical pointof view.

To fix some of the notions that we are goingto use in this work, we mention that by material worldwe mean the whole existence, the total existence, that could enclose, in the most general case, both the universe currentlytreated by physics and that thing that might exist beyond ouruniverse. Thus the material world could be constitutedfrom a deep material existence, that we shall call orthoexistence, and from universe-existences like our universe; these latterexistences are grafted somehow on the orthoexistence.
We may have doubts about the infinity of theuniverse, but it is by no means easier to imagine a finite universe.The question will always arise: But what is there beyond thatfinite barrier ? But have we the right to ask ourselves this questionin this way ? If we remain on the position of classicalEuclid's geometry, based on empirical observation, then we cannotimagine a limit in space and hence we should accept that the universeis infinite. But Einstein showed that a finite universe is physicallypossible since on cosmical scale the universe does not obey Euclid's geometry. Hence there is a rather subtle physical image accordingto which the finite but unlimited universe is possible, and popularscience type of books present numerous attempts to give a simplified image of this concept. The finite universe is explained by "spacecurvature". In fact space curvature (a simplifiedimage is not enough for this concept) appears in Einstein's generaltheory of relativity not only on global scale but also on a localscale when a large mass concentration appears.
If we now refer to local scales and go towardsextremely small dimensions, then we meet again the problems ofthe elementary particles and of the microphysics in general. Thecosmological singularity and the elementary particles raise similarquestions. One of the most important questions at the scale ofthe elementary particles and especially in searching for theirstructure refers to the nature of the space and time inthe deep microphysics. In general the idea prevails that in suchcases the usual space-time concepts are compromised, that a quantificationof space might be necessary and thus an "infraction"of microcausality takes place9.
The idea of a space quantum, which obviouslycannot appear in space but is itself space of an extremely smalluniversal "dimension" and with an inner content thatis not space, is rather chilly. What does then happen in the depthsof the existence? Contemporary microphysics does not go on thepath of infinite divisibility of matter in the sense of particledivision: "We (then) find the profound and natural idea thatthe mechanical and unlimited division of matter must stop one day and this will happen in rather unusual way... "10.
In this area, still rather uncertain, onelooks for the existence of a superspace, like the space with theclassical four space-time coordinates plus a number of other severalcoordinates in which one looks for super symmetry properties thatwould explain the gravitational and electromagnetical field componentsusing a superfield called supergravity. Such a theorywould try to unify the quantum mechanics and the general theoryof gravity in order to explain as unitary as possible the matter11. As one can see, the tendency is to add new physical realities,deeper than the ones we have known so far; these cannot be alwaysplaced strictly in the usual space-time framework.
Another image that is taking shape in physicsis that of attributing to the vacuum some properties. Underan extremely powerful electric field the vacuum could give birthto an electron-positron pair, i.e. would be a source for elementaryparticle. Thus the vacuum would generally appear as a certainsubstance and the very universe would originate in vacuum. Inan other image, the whole universe would be only the equivalentof a single particle.


Forewordvi